Aussies - "Crikey!" worst decision of the day?

[IAmAllanShore]

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0325.html

The worst part of this one seems to be the "bad faith" - which if I'm reading correctly was found due to his using a privacy protect service (Or it could be that NetSol screwed up (again) and didn't change the whois after a successful SnapNames auction).

Wipo's getting worse...

I almost feel like a "worst decision of the day" thread would have no shortage of contenders...

-Allan

 

[labrocca]

I gotta agree with the WIPO decision. I read it a few times...I see a big problem in that the respondent didn't respond to the allegation and only gave a procedural history. If he paid $7500 for the name he certainly should have gotten a solid lawyer to defend it. Also the respondent seemed to make more than a few mistakes in it's conversations with the complaintant. His actions were the undoing of this name.

On face value the 2 names are confusingly similar. Usage of course should matter but wipo often considers bad-faith to be parking or attempting to resell which is exactly what the respondent did.

Also since the respondent was an Australian it was likely he was aware of the email service. Just lots of bad-faith imho and he handled this very poorly.

The lesson again is not to park nor place for sale a domain you really want to keep. WIPO has continued to show extreme disfavor for parked names and resellers.

 

[Dave_Z]

The simple reason the complainant won is because the respondent didn't reply
to the contentions other than those indicated under procedural history. Very,
very few decisions are decided for the respondent despite not replying.

Take note also the phrase "reinforces the conclusion". What the complainant
did was show "hey, here's where we believe the registrant/respondent was up
to no good" via what happened behind the scenes and the "timing" when the
WHOIS details were changed.

Remember what Dr. Berryhill said: these are fact-intensive. The complainant's
providing their facts, coupled with the respondent not replying, is what done
this in.

Well, there goes another one. Crikey.

 

[briman1970]

I'd have to side with the complainant in this case as well. The respondent acted like an ass and because of the history of the domains being linked at one time, it was crucial that the respondent make a formal response to the complaint. They gave him two chances to make his complaint and he dropped the ball. The Muslim cartoon and who-is misinfo made it much worse IMO.

I think the worst part is that he bought the name after the complainant filed for their trademark AND he was fully aware of the history of the name when he purchased it. From day 1 he should have put up a one-pager with detailed information on his intentions for the name and a disclaimer stating that the site was no longer affiliated with Crikey magazine. What an idiot!